Can't they just live together?

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Maybe it is just me, but marrying another man just isn't something that I am going to do. Ever! But I guess the politically correct way of thinking is "To each his own".

Sure the airlines are happy with the increased revenue due to all of the flights to San Francisco for people trying to get same gender marriages, but the taxpayers will be paying for the court battle coming up.

Maybe I am old fashioned but I have always taken it for granted that a married couple consisted of a man and a woman. With the capability to produce offspring. I just dont see how a relationship between two individuals of the same gender without the ability to procreate can be called a marriage.

Am I behind the times? If so then I wan to go back.

[Mad Mikey]

Ooh, you are brave. Methinks I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch the fur fly. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] That is, if the mods let it happen.....

[Space]

Adam & Eve. Not Adam & Steve.

E NUFF SAID

SPACE

What about poor Biff and Buff?

Some of this has to do with benefits.
I can't support allowing them to marry but discrimination is wrong. I would prefer that they kept their sexual orientation to themselves

[ 02-16-2004, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Silver Hilton]

I think most of the gays don't give a rats ass about getting married. They care about what goes along with it, like being able to inherit, get custody of children, visit your partner in the hospital, get joint tax return treatment, etc.

I think Kerry drew a good distinction. Civil unions recognized by the states handle the rights question. Marriage, as performed by a given church, should be defined by the church in question. Some churches will, some churches won't, and that is what freedom is about.

When someone starts pontificating about defending marriage, my only thought is that their marriage must be on pretty weak ground if it is threatened by anything any two other people are doing.

This can't be the most important issue facing Congress and the President. I am disgusted that we are wasting national attention span on a non issue.

[STGRule]

What Silver Hilton said. A family is a family. A Christian union is between a man and a woman. A family is a family. Same sex unions deserve all the "political" benefits that Christian marriages do. Leave the ceremony to the individuals.

[Silver Hilton]

We may differ slightly. I disagree that a Christian Union needs to be between a man and woman. I know many Christians share my opinions and don't have a problem with gay marriage. If they join/form/are a church that wishes to grant a marriage to two people of the same sex, I think it should be their right to allow it. That sounds to me like what freedom of religion ought to be about.

[STGRule]

I should have been more specific. Conservative Christians believe marriage is between men and women. I don't care and while I doubt God does either, some will disagree. God will sort it out in the end, not a human.

[Silver Hilton]

Bingo.

Went to our little spot last weekend. No hits, no runs, no errors. Soon.

[STGRule]

We are looking forward to the adventure....

[WheresMyBobber]

Good job keeping this civil folks. I don't want to have to be the bad guy and lock this topic.

[STGRule]

WMB, I didn't! Jennie did.

[WheresMyBobber]

No, no, no, nothing implied other than that I'm surprised and glad that this topic hasn't spun out of control. It surely has the potential!

[2LEYS]

I am pretty conservative as most of you know. I don't agree with same sex marriage or even civil unions.

But on the other hand if someone is gay that is their own deal and I don't care.

The problem I have with civil unions is that if I wasn't married I couldn't put my girlfriend on my helth insurance but If I was gay, I could put my boyfriend on. Just a double standard.

Society has always looked at marriage as between an man and a woman and that is the way I believe it should stay.

[1pump]

[img]graemlins/lurk.gif[/img]


What's the difference between a "civil union" and "marriage"? :whazzup:

[Silver Hilton]

Two,

Because you are hetero, you have the option of going down to the courthouse with your girlfriend at any time of your choosing, and then getting her on your health care. That's what the gays are asking for, the right to go to the courthouse.

[happybrew]

Before I begin, I wish to head off potential criticism that I am intolerant or a bigot. Neither is the case. I don't think that homosexuals should be discriminated against in any way. I don't think that they should be harmed or attacked or singled out. While I believe that homosexual acts are morally wrong, I believe that all sexual acts outside of marriage are just as wrong. I have relatives who are gay. They are welcome in my home. I do, however, have the right to moral beliefs informed by my religion without being called a bigot or intolerant for expressing them.

That being said, I think that gay marriage is a legal fiction, just like divorce is a legal fiction. A marriage is between one man and one woman, and cannot be dissolved. If we recognize this, why should we not also recognize polygamy? How about sibling marriage? Do we really want to go there? I think that fiddling with the legal definition of marriage is a dangerous thing for our society, and the ramifications have not been fully thought out.

I think that it is being pushed as a way to get benefits. A homosexual couple can always find a liberal church to perform a ceremony, regardless of its legal acceptance. It's not about the ceremony.

I work for a company that offers benefits to "domestic partners". That is their right. It would also be a company's right not to offer those benefits. I think the gay marriage thing is primarily a way of forcing companies to recognize a legal fiction. A small business owner would be required to offer the same benefits and same recognition to something she or he considered immoral. This is wrong. Tolerance is one thing. Legally required acceptance is an entirely different animal.

When people are forced to recognize something that they consider to be immoral, the law becomes normative. It puts forward such a thing as a "good". This has the effect of changing opinion. Just like with our banned topic whose name I am not allowed to utter under pain of editing and finger shaking, it will go from being considered a "right" that is tolerated as a necessity to a "good" that is celebrated in the affirmative. It will go beyond the regulatory and into the normative.

What we are seeing in SF right now shows how far this movement is willing to go. A mayor thinks he has the authority of declare California law unconstitutional, quite apart from a ruling of the court. Not content with weakening the institution of marriage, they feel they must weaken the rule of law as well. Unlike with civil rights laws, where a large segment of our population engaged in civil disobedience to change the law, this movement is not seeking to change the law, but to write its own law that would be binding on everyone else in the country. They have not pressured authority, but have usurped authority. They have declared, not that the law should be changed, but that the law doesn't matter and they can do what they want, and everyone else should recognize it. Can the mayor of Portland just decide that pollution laws can be ignored? How about child labor laws? Then we can compete with Indonesia, and get more manufacturing jobs to benefit our economy, and a positive good will result, right? Wrong. A mayor can challenge the decision of a court. A mayor cannot usurp the authority of a court.


happybrew

[pdxkevin]

The qualifications of getting married are few. One woman marrying one, unrelated man; both being of legal age. Period. If you don't meet the requirements, sorry. The intent of marrage is to, ideally, provide the optimum foundation to raise kids. Can kids be raised outside the optimum setting. Sure. Is that what we should strive for? no. There are things only a women can teach a child and there there are things only a man can teach a child. More over, there are things a child can learn from their interaction which will carry on throughout how they (the kids) will interact with the world as a whole.

It's for the children.

[Ramstrong]

Very well put HB.

[Straydog]

What Silver Hilton and STG said...........

I am disappointed that at a time like this in our country there is so much attention being given to this and Janet Jackson's anatomy.

[CATCH AND EAT]

HappyBrew thank you. I agree with most of what you said. [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] "A man should not lay with a man, nor a woman lay with a woman". If God had intended a man to lay with a man he would have given one of them ovaries or the ability to reproduce. Please keep your sexual preferences in your bedroom and not on a national discussion platform. Last couple of days have made me sick to watch the evening news with my children next to me and see men kissing each other. Had to turn it off last night and play games with the kids. I'm a better MAN for it.

Again Happy Brew thank you.

[ampersat]

People keep bring up the progeny issue and relating it to marriage as a context on which marriage is or should be based. What about infertile couples or couples who choose not to spawn? Should that affect their ability to marry? If not, then why should a different standard be applied to homosexuals?

I'm all for civil unions for any and all couples. It's about more than insurance. It's about a whole host of legal ramifications. Since there's no "marriage" for gay couples, there really isn't divorce either. There are no laws regulating the distribution of property in this situation. What about a serious medical situation? A spouse can make decisions in these situations that a life partner cannot. Why should a person be denied the protections of the law based on their sexual orientation?

[Silver Hilton]

Happy,

I think the root of the question goes to that word, "immoral". You have every right to hold your opinion, as your church does to, as you put it, inform you. However, I think there is a question that merits a bit of thought here, which is, what business does our government, or any church, have in caring about what two people are doing behind closed doors? Tongues cluck and fingers wag over the question of what those fruits are doing behind the doors, and what lubricants might be required to make it happen. Then we get scandalized at the notion that they might actually behave as if they love and care for each other. Finally, horrors, they might want to dip from the community pool of rights! Egads, the entire fabric of society is at risk of being torn asunder!!! My kids might catch it!!!

Your expressed concern is that homosexual behavior might become normative. Implicit in that statement might be a concern that the behavior might spread. Perhaps to your kids? Intellectually, I suspect that you already know the science around the issue, which is that people are born gay. There ain't no pill they take that makes them gay, there ain't no pill that makes them straight, and a man putting his arm around your shoulders won't make you a contender for backup makeup artist on Queer Eye For the Straight Guy. I've had a few gays hit on me over the years, and I can tell you from personal experience that it has not made me yearn for Justin Timberlake over Brittany Spears.

People's attitudes about what disgusts them changes. Think about how much more matter of fact we got about being peed on after our kids came along. I have yet to meet one person whose disgust over homosexual behavior was not really rooted in their own fear that they, or worse, their children, might harbor gay tendencies. This is perhaps natural, given the severe societal repercussions to being gay. But the good (or bad) news is this. You either are or aren't gay already, as are your kids. It isn't catching. The clinical evidence on this is simply irrefutable at this point. If your kid is one of the 5%(female) to 10%(male) of america that is gay, all that would happen if we relaxed our paranoia is that these kids would grow up less harrassed, less fearful, and less miserable.

That sounds to me like something that Jesus would be all about.

So, if being gay isn't catching, if it's something you are born with, then declaring someone immoral because they are gay is morally no different than declaring them immoral because they are black, or female, or deformed. I don't think we are at the right pay grade in the cosmic pay scale to make that call.

Others, who sit on the right hand of God, seem to think they are so empowered and qualified. I will continue to respectfully differ.

Springers be coming, mon.

[DanS]

The intent of marrage is to, ideally, provide the optimum foundation to raise kids.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">According to whom?

I don't recall that ever being addressed when we applied for our marriage license.

[Cool Texan]

SH,

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Personally, I dont know really know how God feels about homosexuals. I dont know if He loves them as He does all others, or if He despises them. I dont know if they will be allowed into Heaven or shunned into H E double hockey sticks. What I do know is that through His son I have been taught to accept all people, treat all people well and equally, and to love my neighbors as if they were family. The church I attend (Methodist) is an openly accepting church. We have elderly people there, young couples, and also some homosexuals. Its a non issue really. If their actions are "wrong", then God will sort it all out in His time. For the here and now though, it's not for me to judge. In the meantime, I'll focus on my family and living my life the best I can.

[Lured In]

Moral issues aside, my personal opinion is that the homosexual community is going about this the wrong way.

Had they decided that they want a "union" defined for homosexual couples with the same or similar rights as heterosexual marriages, but not used the word marriage, I think they would not have the issues they are having today.

Essentially I am saying 'invent' a word that will encase this union between same sex partners, in the same way that marriage has traditionally been associated with a man and a woman. For the sake of argument let's call it "binding". Gay couples can have 'binding' ceremonies, like a wedding, have legal rights for couples who are 'bound' and all the while not a single law has to be changed regarding the definition of marriage. People who argue the foundation of marriage is between a man and a woman, could say nothing about the 'binding' of gay couples as it would be defined as a legal relationship between same sex partners.

The end result would be new laws recognizing 'bound' couples and affording the same legal rights as married couples.

Essentially this would add to what already exists and does not detract from what we have traditionally associated with marriage.

[El-Kabong]

It is nice to see this topic stay civil. (no pun intended!!!!)

My opinion is that any couple that wishes to declare a union should be allowed to do so and it is not the role of government to determine what a marriage is or is not.

Nor is it the business fo government to enact discrimination against its people. To even consider altering the constitution to include a "discrimination clause" is beyond belief.

Consider this

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Amendment XIX

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Amendment XXVI

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Amendment XV

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

and along with this list will be

Amendment ***

A marriage is between a man and a women, couples not being a man nor women can neither be allowed to married, nor are they allowed to share in the rights, privledges of married peoples.

just doesn't seem right, nor does it appear to fit in with for what America is about.

Lured In, I am afraid that creating a new word "binding" is akin to saying,

"can you also wear this scarlet letter G, so people will know and be sensitive enough to not mention it in public"

this issue is not about labels, it is about equal treatment under the law. (again IMO)

[ 02-17-2004, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: El-Kabong ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

Interesting thought Lured in. Takes on a much less offensive tone that way.

Silver Hilton, You are assuming that we are homophobic in your address. Very much the contrary my friend. I deal quite often with persons in the gay community and truthfully find many of them to be very fine people. I have nothing against them as people but I certainly do not condone the activities they participate in of the sexual nature. And as far as "science" being the issue here. I'm sorry, I just do not buy it. It is simply a choice.

Cool Texan. God loves us all, sinner or not. He does however hate SIN. God loves the homosexual just as much as he loves you and I so why question whether he loves a homosexual? He loves us all no matter our faith or lack there of. Simply, God hates SIN and if you choose to sin and not ask for forgivness then you have answered God's question whether you belong in the Kingdom of God. Okay, one last thought so I don't get to flamed here. We humans do not know where a persons commitment to God lies when we die. Only the Father and you will know that. You could be the worst sinner on earth and with your last breath accept him and He will accept you. But why wait? Ten commandments were given to us to follow. He Son was given to us as attonment for our sins (all of us). Accept the Son and live.

Jesus accepted all sinners and made a special effort to witness to them. Mary Magnaleen(sp), Zachius, Peter and so on. All very rough characters even by todays standards. He still loved them. Hey, if anyone can forgive a fisherman and all the tall stories we tell, He can right.

So yes it is a moral issue my friends. Unfortuantly it has also become a political issue on which parties are divided in a bitter battle.

Lastly, the Mayor of SF should be impeached. You cannot just throw a law away without due process by the state. Hopefully his repremand will be swift.

To those of you that may be offended by religious references by anyone on these posts I am sorry. Well, not really. Not my intention to belittle anyones position, just argue the point.

[SafetyChain]

I will try to keep this civil. I simply need to make the following statements, express my understanding and it is not intended to inflame or encite. Only to fulfill an obligation. As has already been stated, God will ultimately sort it out. You have to decide your answer to his questions.

I have yet to meet one person whose disgust over homosexual behavior was not really rooted in their own fear that they, or worse, their children, might harbor gay tendencies.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">SH, glad to meet you. I am honored to be the first person you have met who depises homosexual behavior and am not the least bit "afraid" of myself or my sons becoming homosexual.

I am not a Bible thumper nor a saint. But I do have a literal belief of the Bible and because of that, an obligation to God to stand for what He has instructed. My God has given explicit instruction as to the definition of marriage, multiple times. He has stated his own disgust for homosexuality, multiple times. You can certainly choose to believe or not. He gave you, and everyone else, that choice. And as I am not forcing my beliefs on you, why should I be forced to accept, if only legally, the union of homosexuals. I have already been forced to accept the lifestyle as "normal behaviour." And ultimately, as a result of legal acceptance, I will be forced to pay for this union I belive to be immoral.

Again, I must stand for what I believe or I believe in nothing. And what I believe is not FEAR of becoming homosexual but rather my fear of eternal damnation.

[lost_sailor]

It's a legal issue, not a religious issue.

I don't understand why my wife and I can enjoy all the benefits :whazzup: of marriage (remind me what they are...) but our homosexual friends cannot.

We're people, they're people. I don't think we're any superior for being straight.

[ 02-17-2004, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: lost_sailor ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

Who said anything about being superior LS? I don't see anyone remotely implying that here.

Sodom and Gamora. Seems God dealt with the sin and immoral behavior pretty straight forward. If these folks choose to live as persons of alternate life styles it is indeed there CHOICE. I'm not interested in that. I am interested in them only as persons of value not in their sex lives.

Someone in a previous post said they would invite a homosexual into their home. I would too, even to stay for dinner. But if they look to me for approval of their lifestyle I will kindly state that I cannot condone that kind of behavior but they can always feel welcome in my home.

Am I afraid my children will turn out gay because of all of this. Nope. And even if they did I would still love them just as much. Would I be disappointed should they choose that lifestyle? Yes, but God will judge them, not me.

[ 02-17-2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

[Cool Texan]

Very mature names C&E.

[DanS]

And as far as "science" being the issue here. I'm sorry, I just do not buy it. It is simply a choice.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Does this conclusion come from your years of study of human genetics?

[El-Kabong]

Agree with you Gary,

"Christian" based religion is not under attack, rather the infiltration of public entities by christian based religions is under attack.

I can go/or not go to any religious institution that I choose. Have never felt that I could not in America.

EK

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by El-Kabong:
Agree with you Gary,

"Christian" based religion is not under attack, rather the infiltration of public entities by christian based religions is under attack.

I can go/or not go to any religious institution that I choose. Have never felt that I could not in America.

EK

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Bernie your killing me :grin: . BTW, every religion in the U.S. (except for some hokey ones) are fundamentally against this. Frankly I miss the 80's and the earlier days before I was born.. When being Homosexual was wrong instead of something to be proud of . What next NAMBLA is going to gain acceptance?

LS,
"I haven't read a RATIONAL reason to deny these rights"

Benefits yes, marriage no. There is no "Right" to be married. Discrimination of any kind should not be tolerated.

The following is the only "Right" that would apply here:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Outlaw,
I don't think anyone would want to marry a sheep but who knows where this will end.

[ 02-17-2004, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

Originally posted by Cool Texan:
Very mature names C&E.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Did not intend to offend CT. I changed the terms just for you.

Now as far as religion being under attack. I see it as being challenged each and every day. School prayer, 10 commandments removed, holiday tree [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img] , pledge of allegience and so on. Unfortunatly the church has not responded and let the few rule the many. It's not majority rule any longer, it is minority rule. So yes we are being challenged at every turn we just simply need to fight back. And please don't give me the turn the other cheek speach. This PC awareness gig that is being shoe-horned into society is nothing more people wanting something for nothing. ENTITLEMENTS!!!!! :shocked:

So if you don't believe religions are being challenged I respectfully say you are incorrect and grossly misinformed.

[ 02-17-2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

[Cool Texan]

Lepper, its quite simple actually...

Matthew 7:1-2 (NIV) says "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

First of all, I dont think its a choice so much as a way people are wired at birth. If they're wired that way, what's the problem? If it is a sin before God and they are doomed to the firey pits of hell, that's their problem. It doesnt give me the right to make their time here on Earth a living hell. To each their own, and for each, judgement shall come according to the choices they have made on their lives.

I can honestly say, my life is not so crystalline pure as to give me the right to judge others....except for those dirty hippie protestors! (joke)

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Keta,
You could always hope for that... I could just see it now Keta selling high quality brides on the internet for millions .

[Cool Texan]

Originally posted by CATCH AND EAT:
Did not intend to offend CT. I changed the terms just for you.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Didn't offend me at all C&E. Just found your choice of words pretty immature is all. As your signature implies, courtesy could and should be used, even if you dont agree with people.

Hummmmmm.....Naaaaaaa :grin:

[ 02-17-2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[CATCH AND EAT]

WRO, don't encourage Keta, he's looking for that pot of gold still. :grin:

CT, Judging others and knowing the difference between what is right or wrong can actually be different. I agree with the scripture in Matthew which you so graciously posted. However that does not dispense how we are responsible for our own actions which is what I intrepret this scripture to watch out for. "Why worry about the splinter in some elses eye when there is a 2x4 in your own".

WE are human, we do judge, we do form opinions about one another all the time. WE label each other conservative, liberal, lost, found, confused and so on. Like I said earlier in this thread, we don't know what level each person dies at in their commitment to Christ or GOD. And of course GOD will judge justly and fairly in the end won't he. So we love the sinner but hate the sin just as God said he does. Just as Jesus lead by example during his lifetime.

If persons choose to participate in homosexual life styles that is their choice. Let 'em at it. Just don't ask me to support their bankrupt agenda.

[CATCH AND EAT]

CT, Ya it was immature. Just got caught up in the emotion and let my guard down. Life goes on and we can now GET OVER IT. :grin:

[ 02-17-2004, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: CATCH AND EAT ]

[SlabQuest]

Without reading all the posts, let me just say that on my next visit to San Francisco, I think I'll walk into the ladies shower room at the YWCA and take a gander. :shocked:

To deny me entrance would be blatant sex descrimination and I KNOW the mayor would not stand for that....

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Originally posted by Mad Mikey:
Ooh, you are brave. Methinks I'll just sit on the sidelines and watch the fur fly. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] That is, if the mods let it happen.....

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes I am brave. But not for posting this post. I am one of those No Fear types that likes to drive fast, climb mountains, etc...

I feel that this is an important topic. I believe in the traditional family unit. I think that there is a direct coalation with the problems that our society is experiencing with the youth of America today and the breakdown of the family unit. To take the traditional man/woman family unit and undermine it even further by allowing same gender marriages, erodes the strength of the fabric that our country was founded on. Sure there have been many changes and ways of thinking since our country was born. But the union between Man and Women called marriage produced the backbone that made the United States the geatest nation to ever exist. The American Dream was based on the family unit. White picket fences, backyard barbeque's, and family outings are what a family is all about. Mom, Dad, and a couple of kids. Thats a family.

The concept of Marriage should be reserved for a man and women with the ability to procreate.

My beliefs are not based on religion. I have not been to a church in years. They are based on what I believe to be common sense moral values. I have been quite accepting of those who want to play on thier side of the road. Don't ask don't tell for the military, I said OK. Health benefits for domestic partners, well OK. I think that those of that persuasion have made quite a bit of progress. And those that feel as I do allowed it and basically looked the other way. Now I feel like I just got kicked in the face.

[2LEYS]

No one is being discriminated against. Everyone has the same rights.

Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

No one gets additional rights.

But if a long term relationship ends in death they have problems, many companies will not insure "partners" (both gay and streight). There are real issues here but they are approaching them in the wrong way.

[ 02-17-2004, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[JCJ]

Well said HMBF,I think for many tears now we have looked the other way and let the vocal minority tell us what is and what should be and if we did not accept all their agendas we should feel guilty and yes I also do believe that a lot of the problems we have in today's society are caused by the break down of the family values.Is this what "progress" is supposed to do for us? And since when is sexual preference a cause for special rights? Yea ,I know they are just asking for the same rights as everybody else,BLAH,BLAH,Heard it too many times and still do not believe it.They have the same unalienable rights as every citizen of this country,but they want more.I can be turned down for a job but if they turn down them, then they scream discrimination.So let me get this right,if I go to SF then I can legally marry my sheep after all she is my Life Partner and shares my life with me.Then I can put her on my insurance and my will and then her shearings will be covered by my HMO.If they want to live together and share their life together then do so but do not teach my children in school that its just another lifestyle and should be accepted,then I will have to bring my sheep to school and tell them its just another lifestyle so accept it!!! Its just sexual preference not special rights.

[Chromaflage]

Originally posted by El-Kabong:

"Christian" based religion is not under attack...

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Really?!?!?! So, why did a Kindergaten kid get hammered by the Gresham-Barlow school district for handing out candy canes to his classmates with the Christian-based story of its origin attached to them? Do you really think that if another kid would have been chastised for giving out symbols from another religion? Think not! Take a look at what religious tenets have been attacked in the last few years:

1. The use of "God" in the pledge of allegiance
2. The ten commandments in schools and courthouses
3. Prayer in schools
4. Prayer in public places
etc, etc, etc,

What other religion has been so vehemently opposed in our country. It saddens me that the religion on which this country was foudned IS the most vehemently opposed reqligion in our country. And it's all in the name of the newest religion, "tolerance," which states that all things should be tolerated EXCEPT Christian-based values and morals. Satan is alive an well here in the greatest country on God's creation.

ORS

[ 02-18-2004, 06:07 AM: Message edited by: OregonRedside ]

[DanS]

My marriage and family "undermined" by gays being allowed to marry? Preposterous.

My marriage and family will stand on their own merits, without regard to the actions of others. Marriage "fails" or is "undermined" by the actions of the people IN the marriage, not by the actions of others.

If your marriage fails or your family falls apart, let me assure you.......you won't be able to blame it on gays getting married.

[HeavyMetal BankFisherman]

Originally posted by DanS:
My marriage and family "undermined" by gays being allowed to marry? Preposterous.

My marriage and family will stand on their own merits, without regard to the actions of others. Marriage "fails" or is "undermined" by the actions of the people IN the marriage, not by the actions of others.

If your marriage fails or your family falls apart, let me assure you.......you won't be able to blame it on gays getting married.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Didn't mean to imply that these events would undermine any current marriages.

I am just concerned that the "Concept" of marriage will be diminished.

[crabbait]

I don't think anybody is advocating a union with animals here.

I also don't understand why people are so threatened by people wanting to have their union acknowledged legally so that they can visit each other in the hospital or have some claim to property in the event of a partners death or have a lawful and equitable split of properties if they decide to end the relationship.

I don't see any of those as special rights.

[Lepper]

Last I saw.. and I don't think the Bible change recently.. (could be wrong though)

It doesn't support same sex marriage or anything similar in life style!! I don't see how anyone could call themself Christian and support this.. Well I guess there are people out there that call themselves that and don't live by or ever read the bible..

But I heard some interesting statistics of same sex marriage the other day.. Specifically between men..

Here it is..

The average marriage between two men.. 1.5 years..
During that 1.5 years they will have an average of 8 different partners.. don't sound like they need to be married to me..

I'll try to find the source.
d

[SafetyChain]

Last I saw.. and I don't think the Bible change recently.. (could be wrong though)

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope!

I don't see how anyone could call themself Christian and support this

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">me neither.

Well I guess there are people out there that call themselves that and don't live by or ever read the bible..

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">couldn't have read it and come to the same conclusion. IMHO

Lepper- [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[garyk]

As expected, this issue splits pretty quickly into parallel arguments. Political science and America's secular Constitution on one hand, and, personal religious beliefs on the other.

There is an un-bridgeable chasm between those arguments. And that division is another great example of why we need to maintain both religious freedom (which is in no jeopardy)and freedom from religion in our governmental affairs.

Church marriage is a religious issue and should stay in that realm. Individuals' legal status and standing is a civil rights issue and needs to be addressed by our secular laws.

[ampersat]

This is an issue that highlights a deeper, more fundamental (and hypocritical) issue: the supposed separation of church and state. We can't allow prayer in school but all of our money includes the phrase "In God We Trust".

As Lured In stated, had they called it something else they would probably have achieved it already. But that they are asking for marriage, it's a contentious topic. The word marriage ties the notion of the union back to the Church and to the Bible and allows the framework of a moral argument to come into play.

To the extent that marriage is perceived as an institution based on religion, I think our government should get out of "marriage". All government-sanctioned unions, be they hetero- or homosexual, should be termed something else, such as civil union or what have you, for legal purposes. If you want to get "married", then go to a church. If a church or religion doesn't allow homosexuals to marry, then they can find a different church or religion. There are churches and religions that condone it.

"both religious freedom (which is in no jeopardy)"

Wrong here Gary Christian based religion is under attack.

Why can't they just go for making benefits available for all "Family" (live in hetro's included) and keep marriage out of it. I also wish they would stay in the closet and not constantly trying to shove their sickening lifestyle on us.

[ 02-17-2004, 10:43 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Cosmic Lazy Susan]

For thousands of years marriage has existed as between a man and a woman. It is not just a Christian thing.

I'm fine with civil unions and them having all the benefits of marriage.

Just don't call it marriage when it's between two people of like gender.

Leave marriage what it has been for thousands of years and come up with some other term for unions between like genders.

Dale

[Lured In]

El-Kabong...I am not looking to place a scarlet letter on anyone.

Is a transexual a male or a female? They are generally neither as the change is (as i understand it) only slightly more than skin deep. Therefore they are labeled as transexuals (which last time I checked was not offensive to them as that is how they refer to themselves). A female is defined by certain attributes which are biologically inarguable. As is a male in the same way. Changing your outward sexual appearance does not put you into the category of male or female. It only adds a dimension to what we recognize as 'options'. Now we have male, female and transexuals.

In the same way, tradition has been that marriage is between a man and a woman. Trying to change this is akin to changing the defintion of a male or female to include transexuals. While this is an obvious stretch for a comparison, I believe it illustrates that just because something looks a certain way, does not mean it should be labled as such. Additionally, 'labeling' something does not also mean that is going to be shunned or somehow looked down upon.

My point simply being that much of the 'hoo-ha' over gay marriages would not be such an issue if they had simply created there own name for their union and pursued legal recognition of it. Nothing to label. Last time I checked, being married labeled me as having 'a ball and chain'. Am I offended by that? Simply no.

IMHO marriage is between a man and a woman. If the homosexual community wants to have the same rights under the law they would have better success pursuing a union of their own.